Since people are still debating whether international results should count in how USFS select the world team, let me bring up a very important thing: money. Competitive figure skating is hella expensive to begin with. Doing overseas competitions makes it exponentially more expensive. Even with the hosting federation paying for tickets, accommodations and food for the competitors (which I know the Japanese Federation did, I don't know if others do), they don't pay for coaches or guardians for underaged skaters. A few years back a top level US pairs skater, I believe it was Katie Orscher, outright asked for donations and broke down all the expenses that competitive skating entails. It was enormous, and the prize money and the USFS funding for top skaters don't remotely cover it, especially for pairs or ice dancing where that money is split and many expenses (like equipment) are doubled.

For poorer US skaters who desperately want to represent their country at worlds or the Olympics (you may think of the selection as strictly an exercise for spots, but to those skaters it is their dream), they and their families can look at medaling at nationals, then earning a trip to worlds or Olympics as a doable goal they can scrounge up money for. But if you add to that the requirement that they have to do well in 3 or 4 international competitions that season, many less well off skaters and their providers will just have to give up. Even now, promising and talented skaters quit because they can't afford to stay in the sport. This will make things worse.

This is far less of a problem in the Russian, Japanese and Chinese federation, where the federation garnishes most of a skater's earnings and distribute that and other money they get to all the skaters. They also exercise a great deal of control over those skaters' choice of coaches, competition and other aspects of their lives. It's a very different system from the US. Promising skaters in those countries have a shot at having all their bills taken care of (and their individual choices taken away). Unless US figure skating gets a Russian expat takeover like US gymnastics did, we're not going to have that evil socialistic system.

Until we reach a point where more skaters (say anybody who gets any international assignments) truly have all their expenses taken care of, it would be hugely unfair to make international assignments a requirement for world team selection. As if the sport needs to be even more gentrified. And if we do move to a system where skaters are funded directly by the federation, we're going to have a very different sport. Because just like Japan, China and Russia, the people who pay the bills will demand to make the decisions (that is true almost anywhere really). The US prizes rugged individuality and pulling oneself up by the bootstrap. Which is fine when applied to what amounts to a prestigious hobby like figure skating (not so fine when applied to basic necessity like healthcare GRRR). But part of respecting that individuality and helping oneself also means not putting undue burdens on the individuals. I think it's fine and fair to require that skaters to fund themselves through regional and then nationals for a shot at representing the US. But to require that they do that for one season, then spend vastly more to pass a gauntlet of international competitions? I hate it. Doesn't enough of life and society unfairly reward the rich? In the art/sport of figure skating, where talent can bloom in any of the social strata, why make it even harder for those with less means to inspire and entertain us and make us proud?

I guess I don't understand why you didn't include Bradley with Dornbush and Miner too considering his last season's 4CC and Worlds placements (granted, he was injured) and the fact that he hasn't yet skated at all in front of an international ISU panel yet this season. Bradley's very first international competition this season will be Worlds. The USFSA are taking a huge gamble with the World team this year indeed.

If this is not the case -- for instance if there were some kind of point system, so many points for winning the Grand Prix Final, etc. -- then again, we need only a calculator, not a committee.

I do think a committee makes the process less transparent. We all saw who won Nationals. But we did not sit in on the committee's deliberations afterward.

I do think a committee decision would make the process more exclusive. The committee would favor the same-old same-old that they favored in the past, and it would be difficult for a skater like Ross Miner to gain attention. (Unless, of course, he had friends in high places or his coach was able effectively to lobby for him.)

Let's have a committee to decide who goes to worlds. I nominate Joesitz, Pangtongfan and me to serve. We all have opinions, well-founded in our own minds, as to who is most deserving and most likely to do us proud in Tokyo. Is this a good plan?

1. Wouldn't you need a committee to decide points allocation and the like?

2. True, we saw who won Nationals. Can we be entirely (or even reasonably) certain that the judging was fair? Because if not, the process is murkier.

3. Isn't the "same-old same-old" to a certain extent what you get in a competitive process ANYWAY? If two/three/four/five people are consistently excellent and above the field, what changes?

4. No, that's not a good plan, but that's because of the people involved, not the idea. If you had named Blades of Passion and gkelly, I'd probably approve.

Originally Posted by Mathman

I doubt it. The USFSA has been doing it this way for eighty years. U.S. skaters have won a bunch of stuff, and sometime they didn't. I don't think the federation will panic if things don't work out so well this time.

We have to remember that the USFSA has 100,000 dues-paying members. 99.9% of them will never have anything to do with the ISU and have no reason to care whether or not such an organization exists.

1. Apples and oranges. In the 80 years of the organization, I'm sure they've changed selection criteria, funding criteria etc. Moreover, the points allocaiton (13 for three spots, etc) has actually been around for less than 15 years. In that time, a quick glances tells us that the USA hasn't gone from 3-to-1 spot.

2. Second point is true.

Originally Posted by Serious Business

ENTIRE POST

Great post. And salient enough when you remember that Agnes Zawadski didn't have international experience before heading to World Juniors last year where she won silver.

1. Wouldn't you need a committee to decide points allocation and the like?

That would be OK. My objection is not to having someone come up with a point system that includes the results of international competitions. (Although I would still be slightly in opposition.)

My objection is to the suggestion that after all the competitions are over, a committee sits down for a chat and says, well, all in all, I think Mirai has a good skate left in her and we know Jeremy is better than he showed this year, what do you say we send them?

3. Isn't the "same-old same-old" to a certain extent what you get in a competitive process ANYWAY? If two/three/four/five people are consistently excellent and above the field, what changes?

That's what we would find out. If the same-old win, good for them. If they lose, they should not expect to slip in through the back door by currying favor with a committee.

4. No, that's not a good plan, but that's because of the people involved, not the idea. If you had named Blades of Passion and gkelly, I'd probably approve.

Well, two things. First, if we accept the idea of this committee, how do we guarantee that BoP and genekelly get elected to it, instead of me?

Secondly, I still wouldn't want the world team to be decided on the basis that Blades of Passion sees more promise in Mirai's skating than in Rachael's, even though he may have valid reasons for his view.

Eh, now I'm arguing for the sake of arguing. But yeah, I get ya. In the end, I don't blame the federations for structuring it this way. If you're good enough, you're good enough. If you're inconsistent, there's no guaranteeing you'll hit it at Worlds when you couldn't at Nationals (where presumably, there's less competition).

Below is an excerpt from Ross Miner's interview with IN with quotes regarding
4CC and Worlds. I did not post a link to the article because GS does not allow it.

Miner is aware that some thought it might have been better to name fourth-place finisher Jeremy Abbott to the world team in his place, and that some question whether the team will be able to secure three spots for the U.S. next year.

"I think Jeremy's a great skater, and I would have understood," he said. "I don't know if I would have been happy about it. Jeremy's one of the great American figure skaters, but I'm happy to be able to represent the U.S. at worlds. I think the way they did it [assigning Abbott, Adam Rippon and Armin Mahbanoozadeh to the Four Continents Championships] is really fair to everyone, it gives everyone a chance to get ISU points."

"I'm definitely planning on using these negative comments about Ricky [Dornbush] and me not being able to secure three spots at worlds as motivation to work really hard."

Has it been CONFIRMED anywhere/from anyone of importance that Bradley was asked and declined 4CC?

I'm late to this party, but as far as I know, there hasn't been any official or public confirmation that Bradley, Dornbush and Miner all declined a formal invitation to Four Continents (ETA: though Miner implies that he was not offered the choice in his quote posted above). My GUESS is that none of them were offered Four Continents so that Abbott, Rippon, and Mahbanoozadeh would have a chance to earn ISU Championship ranking points.

Originally Posted by gimmethekick

I don't think anyone wants to take away what was earned or worship the committee, but what is the point of the USFSA pretending to have this big "meeting" where they decide who's going to go to the WC, if there just going to send the top 3 every time?

But how do we know there wasn't a lively debate among the 30+ International Committee members over the 3rd men's berth to Worlds?

I think that the Committee which doesn't deal in arithmatical numbers but by comparing skaters on which is the strongest team to send to Worlds should be trusted just as much as the judges were to bring about the results of the Nationals without favoritism in a hometown competition. Other Federations do just that. How many onetime wins proves the best? Sara Hughes, for example. Would you say she was the greatest skater of her era? or had a lucky political win?

I do believe the selection of the Committee should be done wisely. Someone who closely watches every competion and can evaluate the possibilities. Isn't that mathematical?

The automatic win for the US Nats, imo, puts Bradley in a very pressured spot.
The two Newbies also pressed to garner 3 spots next season. We'll soon know in March as opposed to Abbott, Mroz and Rippon all of whom have Senior International Experience.

I think the selection of the 4CC team was a consolation prize to the Worlds team.

Yes, I think it was a consolation prize, too. It allows Jeremy, Armin and Adam to get their ticket punched for next year at an ISU championship (although they may be changing the 'minimum score' requirement this year again, who knows?).

Yeah, putting aside the lack of evidence (as always seems to be the case with conspiracy theories), I'm not sure I even understand this one. If things were fixed at Nationals, then why those results? The judges could have easily all but guaranteed Jeremy one of the top three stops by giving him exceptionally high PCS, but they didn't. Not sure I understand. Can you perhaps explain why you think those judges would have been "ordered" to put Bradley, Dornbush, and Miner in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd? I mean no disrespect, but without more information, your conspiracy theory makes no sense to me.